Last summer while attending a conference out in California,
I had a conversation with two senior managers from an organization
that was going through hard times. Both managers were considerably
frustrated. They clearly felt that their company had the essence
of a good business model and that their staff was a talented group
of individuals who wanted to succeed. Yet the business was barely
treading water and morale was very low. The workplace environment
had lost much of its vitality. Instead of focusing on productive
activities, staff members spent their time and energy dealing with
issues that were mundane, trivial, or mostly personal.

In thinking about that situation and other similar situations I
have faced in various businesses over the past twenty-five years,
I wrote an article for the August 2004 issue of the Apogee (See:
Is It Okay To Be Paranoid If They Really Are Out To Get You?). In that issue, I
talked about cognitive distortions that can enter the workplace,
and I also laid out two types of organizational cultures, which I
labelled "Type A" and "Type B." I wrote:

The Type A corporate culture is one in which people operate
on the basis of rumor and hearsay. The workplace becomes
histrionic, drama queens and kings are ever present, and
employees engage in frequent "scandalmongering." Staff
members speculate on the future of their business, their
competitors, as well as their co-workers based on loose
conjecture and wild extrapolation of facts. Employees in
this type of culture tend to be quick to assign blame,
share disruptive information with those who have no business
need for that information, and magnify the repercussions of
negative events.

The Type B corporate culture is one in which the spreading of
rumor and hearsay is replaced by fact finding, analysis and
investigation. Employees stay focused on their part of making
the organization successful, and when information of a
speculative nature is acquired, it is understood to be
speculative and passed on for further investigation only to
those that have a need to know. Employees in this type of
environment typically shun jumping to conclusions until all
the facts have been acquired, and work to minimize and contain
the repercussion of negative events. Responsibility and
authority tend to be very well aligned in this type of an
organization.

Organizations with Type B cultures tend to be successful far
more frequently than those with Type A cultures. While it is
unfortunately easy to go from having a Type B culture to a
Type A culture, it is far more difficult to shift an
organization with a Type A culture towards Type B.

In response to that article, Apogee reader Andrea Baker noted:

"Now the question is, how can a manager shift the culture from
Type A to Type B? Is it simply a question of the types of
individuals you hire in the first place? Or is there a special
alchemy that turns pessimists and nay-sayers into optimists and
producers? From what I've observed, bringing about such a sea
change is nearly impossible."

When I received Andrea's e-mail, I knew I would have to do at
least one more Apogee issue on just that very subject. It is
possible to turn a Type A culture around, but it certainly isn't
easy. Of all the types of projects that ADASTRO addresses, helping
businesses deal with this kind of organizational dysfunction
(sometimes called "derailment") is probably one of the most
difficult.

Why is it so hard? Not because it takes technical expertise and
know-how. Compare dealing with this kind of a problem to a more
strategic project such as defining a branding strategy, mapping
out an e-business approach, developing a corporate mission
statement, designing a new venture, or determining what a company
should do now to maximize its value five or ten years into the
future. Between me and the other folks who support me at ADASTRO,
I have one heck of a brilliant brain trust at my command. Give us
a business strategy problem to solve, an understanding of the
initial conditions, and the resources we need to solve it, and I
know with absolute confidence that our "rocket scientist" process
is going to come up with a creative and innovative strategy for
shaping the future of our client's business that will maximize
long-term value.

A derailment problem is so much harder to address because, at its
core, it is a people problem, not a strategy problem. And fixing a
dysfunctional organization or division requires changing people's
negative behaviors, which may be deeply rooted.

In order to solve this type of problem, I find it extremely
helpful to divide the workforce into two segments and address them
each in a separate, yet related, manner. The first segment consists
of just one person... the boss, the CEO, the division director, the
department head... whoever the heck is the leader with command of
the ship. The second segment is everyone else.

TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER

You would think that it would be simple to identify the leader, yet
sometimes one finds a situation where they can't even figure out who
is in charge... no one will admit to it. In such a case, the
consultant's role is to put on their wizard hat, take out their wand,
and anoint a captain to the ship before it sinks completely.

There is no getting around the fact that the captain is responsible
for the ship and must take ownership of its problems. Sometimes an
organization can get into trouble due to circumstances entirely
outside of its control. But when the nature of the trouble is this
type of organizational dysfunction, it is - always - at some level
the fault of the captain, and - always - the captain's
responsibility to fix it. If whoever is in charge won't accept that
reality, then there is no chance of helping the organization.

In looking at the organization's problems, I find that the nature of
the leader's failure generally fits into (at least) one of three
categories. Identifying the category that the leader fits into helps
craft an appropriate remediation strategy:

Category 1: The leader initiates and engages in behaviors that are
the direct cause of the dysfunction. These behaviors may include:

Micro-managing;

Playing politics and showing favoritism with the staff;

Being cold, aloof, arrogant, intimidating or insensitive;

Lacking subject-matter competence;

Engaging in unethical conduct;

Having a poor or arbitrary decision-making process; or

Failing to communicate well.

Many of these behaviors are difficult to deal with, because
changing them usually requires getting the leader to
modify core personality characteristics, and solutions need to be
tailored to the specific individual. Using specific examples and case
studies, and then showing the leader how acting differently in those
situations could yield different results, is sometimes an effective
strategy. When dealing with a function that is outside of the
leader's strengths, it is sometimes possible to get the leader to
recognize those situations and realize that they need to either bring
in advisors or delegate authority to others with stronger skills.

Category 2: The leader didn't create the problem environment that
exists within the organization, but he or she may have nonetheless
participated in that environment and at times even encouraged it.
Often this situation will occur simply due to a lack of experience.
The leader won't realize that practices going on in the workplace
will be harmful until they lead to a crisis that requires serious
correction. Continued experience, a willingness to learn from one's
mistakes, and coaching from trusted mentors can often help correct
the situation.

Category 3: The leader neither created nor participates in the problem
behaviors - however, once made aware of them, allows them to continue.
Or the leader is so detached from the organization that he or she
remains completely ignorant of the behaviors. Such a situation is best
dealt with by getting the leader's head out of the sand and helping
him or her see that avoidance will lead only to more problems. The
leader needs to be shown how to take a more active role in
understanding what is happening within the company and how to manage
the resources at hand to prevent problems from occurring in the first
place and to correct the ones that do occur.

Many people think that charisma is a very important leadership skill,
but in fact studies have shown that having what most people would call
a "charismatic personality" is not a strong prerequisite for being an
effective leader of a business organization. A lack of ethics, or a
lack of subject matter competence, usually isn't the root problem
either.

A few weeks ago, I had a chance to hear Dr. Brent Smith speak at a
Leadership Houston seminar. Dr. Smith is an Associate Professor of
Management and Psychology at Rice University's Jesse H. Jones Graduate
School of Management. In talking about leadership derailment, Dr. Smith
referenced studies that had been done looking at individuals who had
seemed to be promising leaders but who had failed to meet expectations.
These studies found that a lack of adaptability is the most common and
most significant problem that holds a leader back from fulfilling their
potential. Effective leadership requires that the leader have a good
understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, that they be able to
seek help in areas in which they are weak, and that they are able to
turn their mistakes into learning experiences that help them become
better leaders in the future.

Experience is critically important, but it needs to occur in a context
in which others are there in a coaching capacity to help manage the
process and ensure that proper lessons are learned. And it is not
suitable or even possible for a leader to turn to one of his or her
employees to provide such a mentoring role without conflict of
interest - it needs to come from someone independent and outside the
organization, and who is able and willing to loyally provide the leader
frank advice even at times at which they don't particularly want to
hear it. Over the years I have found, and continue to find, that
getting this kind of external coaching support from others has been
critical for my personal growth as a leader, and I also find again and
again that my serving as a coach to others helps me see my own
strengths, weaknesses, and actions in a vastly clearer perspective.

TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES MORE

I also find that it is usually possible to classify the rest of the
team members into one of three categories, and identifying the category
that they each fit into again helps craft appropriate remediation
strategies:

Category 1: There will likely be some small group of employees who come
to work each day and do their job, and refuse to become involved in the
politics and drama going on around them. If they find the craziness
going on around them becomes more than they can stand, they will simply
leave and go somewhere else, and do it without drama. These individuals
are valuable employees, and to retain them they need to appreciate that
the leader sees the problems within the organization, intends to fix
them, and highly values their levelheadedness.

Category 2: There will be a large segment of the employees, one in which
the majority of the staff fits into, who don't create the problems
within the workplace, but get drawn into participating in pathological
behaviors, while at the same time wondering why management is not doing
anything to fix the situation. In their minds, they are just playing by
whatever rules seem to be in effect at the time. Generally these
employees will be overjoyed to see management come in and resolve to fix
the problems that exist in the workplace, but they will be skeptical
about changes. They will have to be strongly convinced through
consistency of action by their managers that the changes being made are
real and not just superficial lip service. These employees need to
appreciate that they each need to set an example and are themselves a
critical and valuable part of the solution. And they also need to see
that employees who continue to engage in destructive behaviors are
dealt with swiftly and appropriately.

Category 3: There will be some small segment of employees who thrive on
having a dysfunctional organization. These individuals will be the
gossipmongers, and the rumor spreaders. They will lie to play one
employee against another. They will break confidences and betray trusts
whenever they think it will benefit them. My experience is that these
individuals are not salvageable as employees. One way or another, they
need to leave and leave quickly. In most cases, when they see that the
behaviors in which they have engaged will no longer be tolerated by
their management and their peers, these individuals will either run
away quickly to become another organization's problem (you can applaud
when your competitor hires them!), or in frustration to the new order
they will often commit some act of rebellion or retaliation so
egregious that it will be obvious to all why the leader quickly
terminated them for cause (if they have not yet had a chance to pink
slip them).

THINK LIKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST

In summary, if you can think like a rocket scientist and keep your head
when all about you are losing theirs, then it is possible to transform a
dysfunctional organization. The process is intimately tied to a process
of change and learning that is usually painful, but the alternative
(letting the dysfunctional status quo continue) is even more painful. It
is critical that the leader changes his or her behavior and be willing
to learn from advisors, mentors, and coaches. The leader then needs to
act firmly and resolutely as well as advise, mentor and coach those
within the organization. The chief problem makers within the organization
will leave, and others will gladly adapt to a more rational new order.
Respect that was lost can then be regained and earned over time, and the
organization can again focus on rising to the stars and becoming a truly
extraordinary business success.